Then he says the rise in sea level is not accelerating as some sort of vindication of his position but the sea level is still rising just as scientists predicted it would. This is more evidence of the greenhouse effect (sourse: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)

Furthermore, each of the last 12 years (2001-2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record.

The only alarmism I can see in that article is Paul Driessen’s. He seems to think that a shift from fossil fuels over to clean, renewable energy by our society will lead to strokes, heart attacks, depression and drug and alcohol abuse to name a few. I personally think a shift from fossil fuels to renewables will not only be good for our environment, but will also be good for business. And General Motors agrees with me – http://www.nbcnews.com/business/general-motors-fighting-climate-change-good-business-6C9768451

Sorry, I’ve just realised I’ve made a few mistakes in my last post. The article from the FT is dated last September and the German heat wave from 2010! Not sure how I managed to stuff up so much, but please accept my apologies.

Rachel,
Let’s ignore the Washington Times and look instead at the Obama Administration’s ” twin track ” policies on energy and climate.The following is from the Congressional Research Service Report “US Fossil Fuel Resources”, November 2010.
1. America’s combined energy resources are the largest on earth .They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd) , China (4th), and Canada (6th) COMBINED,without including America’s shale oil deposits,and in the future the enormous impact of methane hydrates.
2. The US is going to dominate global energy supply for decades to come , despite the Obama Administration’s declared war on vital fossil fuels ,which are plainly not running out.
3. While the US is often depicted as having only a tiny minority of the world’ s oil reserve at about 28 billion barrels ( based on the misleading figure of “proven reserves”) according to CRS ,in reality it has around 163 billion barrels.(Obama -March 10, 2012-“With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves , we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices”- a statement that at best is grossly misleading.)The US has enough oil and gas for about 100 years.
4.In 2009, the CRS upped its 2006 estimate of America’s enormous natural gas deposits by 25 % to around 2047 trillion cubic feet.a conservative figure given the rapidly expanding shale gas revolution.Again enough for 100 years.
5. The CRS also alludes to methane hydrates as “immense……possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels.”
Now to the President’s State of the Union addresses.From the 2010 and 2013 addresses and the speech you applaud, his energy policy appears wedded to a non-fossil fuelled notion that insists erratic under-performing windmills and solar panels can do the job equally well.
The energy facts are clear .Currently 85 % of the US energy mix is provided by oil, gas and coal.The US is using around 100 Quads ( Quadrillion Btu) of energy. The EIA says that usage will increase by 0.5 % per year. Extrapolating to 2050 ,this translates to about 125 Quads.
The Obama Administration has stated repeatedly that it intends to slash CO2 admissions by 83 % of the 2005 figures by 2050.
Thus, the current 85 Quads from fossil fuels must be reduced to less than 14.5 Quads.This implies that the contribution from fossil fuels should be reduced to about 11.5%.
This means that wind and solar would essentially provide all the rest.
In March 2010, Obama unexpectedly reversed the long-standing US ban on offshore oil drilling . More drilling for more oil merely exacerbates Obama’s insoluble conundrum.
And what is Obama’s position on the Keystone XL Pipeline ? Not to be approved by the President unless there there are no net additional carbon emissions ?
On May 23, 2013, The House of Representatives passed the Northern Route Approval Act by 241 to 175 .For the full implications see thisweekincongress.com Volume 9,Number 18, week ending June 27,2013
The Carbon Wars continue.

Where does nuclear come into this? Is Obama in favour of nuclear power? I agree with James Hansen and George Monbiot on this one and think we need to increase our supply of nuclear-generated power. I don’t think solar will play a very big role and although wind power is becoming more and more cost-effective, I don’t see it being a complete replacement for fossil fuels.

Rachel ,
Contrary to your view, the President’s speech is pure folly.
See nationalreview.com/article/352690/Obama’s-global-warming-folly
It really is incomprehensible that a Democratic President could be such a “flat earther”himself and introduce this nonsensical program,which will have no impact on the climate
Can you imagine FDR countenancing this stupidity?

Rachel,
Charles Krauthammer’s article now appears in the Washington Post.Joe Romm is fulminating and hyperventilating in his usual fashion at Climateprogress, unable to believe that the New York Times,Washington Post,The New Republic, Der Spiegal, to say nothing of Forbes,and The Economist are all carrying articles about the atmospheric temperature standstill.How can they publish “Global Temperatures have been flat for 16 years”?
Looks like a “conspiracy” to me.
And the American public has got climate change at the bottom of its list of concerns (last of 21 issues- Pew Poll) .It’s enough to make the President weep, after telling the world at Berlin that climate change is the greatest global threat of our times.